Parliamentary Executive in India

Reasons for Choosing Parliamentary System

When drafting the Indian Constitution, the framers drew upon India’s prior experience with parliamentary governance under the Acts of 1919 and 1935. This history illustrated that a parliamentary system effectively enables the legislature, representing the people, to control the executive. The framers aimed to create a government that would be responsive, accountable, and sensitive to public expectations. They deliberated between the parliamentary and presidential forms of government. While the latter emphasizes the president as the central executive authority, it also harbors the risk of fostering a personality cult. Concerned about this, the framers opted for a parliamentary system to ensure a robust executive while guarding against the dangers of unchecked authority.

Complexities Beyond Simple Classification

Despite Neha’s belief that the presence of a president indicates a presidential executive and a prime minister signifies a parliamentary one, this isn’t always accurate. Strong prime ministers have existed, suggesting that the parliamentary system isn’t immune to personality cults. This underscores the need for ongoing vigilance from both the public and the legislature.

Roles in the Parliamentary System

In India’s parliamentary system, the executive comprises the President, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers at both the national and state levels. While the President formally holds executive power, in practice, this power is exercised through the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. The President’s term lasts for five years, and they are elected indirectly by elected representatives, not by ordinary citizens.

Extent of Presidential Powers

Although the President formally possesses wide-ranging powers, including executive, legislative, judicial, and emergency powers, these are usually exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the President’s role is largely symbolic, they do retain certain discretionary powers, particularly in situations such as vetoing bills, requesting reconsideration of advice from the Council of Ministers, and appointing the Prime Minister in cases of coalition governments or hung parliaments. These discretionary powers are influenced by political circumstances and the need for stability in governance.

India’s parliamentary system of governance, enshrined in its Constitution, reflects a careful balance between executive power and democratic accountability.

Shaped by historical precedents and political imperatives, the parliamentary executive in India embodies a model of governance designed to ensure responsiveness to public expectations while curbing the risks of unchecked authority.